Mean squared error estimators of small area means using survey weights
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Using survey weights, You & Rao [You and Rao, The Canadian Journal of Statistics 2002; 30, 431–439] proposed a pseudo‐empirical best linear unbiased prediction (pseudo‐EBLUP) estimator of a small area mean under a nested error linear regression model. This estimator borrows strength across areas through a linking model, and makes use of survey weights to ensure design consistency and preserve benchmarking property in the sense that the estimators add up to a reliable direct estimator of the mean of a large area covering the small areas. In this article, a second‐order approximation to the mean squared error (MSE) of the pseudo‐EBLUP estimator of a small area mean is derived. Using this approximation, an estimator of MSE that is nearly unbiased is derived; the MSE estimator of You & Rao [You and Rao, The Canadian Journal of Statistics 2002; 30, 431–439] ignored cross‐product terms in the MSE and hence it is biased. Empirical results on the performance of the proposed MSE estimator are also presented. The Canadian Journal of Statistics 38: 598–608; 2010 © 2010 Statistical Society of Canada
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Methods About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Simulation or modeling | high |
| grok | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Methods About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Simulation or modeling | high |
| opus | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Methods About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Simulation or modeling | high |
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it